NAGENDRAN BALAJI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 3(1), COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 831/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 May 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment, citing principles of natural justice and the ex-parte nature of the previous orders.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for AY 2016-17 arose from ex-parte assessment and penalty orders. The Assessing Officer added the entire sale proceeds as short-term capital gain without allowing the cost of acquisition.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment and penalty orders passed during the Covid pandemic period should be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI JAGADISH

Pronounced: 22.05.2024

the Act on 23.09.2021 and penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 29-01-2022.

2.

The Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the quantum assessment orders as well as penalty orders passed by lower authorities are ex-parte orders. Accordingly, Ld. AR sought remand back of impugned matters to the Ld. AO so that the assessee could substantiate his claim before the Ld. AO.

3.

The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee remained negligent in attending any of the proceedings.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The A.O has made the addition of entire sale proceeds of Rs. 6,55,00,000/- as short term capital gain without allowing deduction of cost of acquisition. The property was sold by the bank through auction to recover of the loan advanced to assessee.

The Bench observed that the notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 09-02- 2021 and Section 144/147 of the Act order was passed on 23-09- 2021, which was the Covid pandemic period. The Assessee did not appear before the ld CIT(A) despite being given sufficient opportunities. However, the Bench accepts the submission of Ld. AR & 832/Chny/2024 :- 3 -: by observing that after all the orders of the lower authorities are ex- parte orders and keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned orders are set-aside. However, we deem it proper to remand the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass de-novo assessment. The AO is at liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee shall appear before the Assessing Officer and furnish complete details for his fresh consideration subject to the condition of payment of Rs.2,500/- each towards cost in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority at Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

5.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd May, 2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →